Which European Country Is the Most Democratic - Research Paper Example

Which European country is the most democratic? Introduction Each European nation maintains distinctly different political systems and governmental structures. Though the majority of countries in Europe have developed foundational systems of governance based on fundamental democratic principles and processes, the hierarchies of control differ and thus maintain unique classifications of the type of democracy that drives power, the development of social programmes and welfare spending, as well as the establishment of balance of power between ruling factions, parliamentary figures or executive leadership. Barrett (2011, p.1) identifies seven distinct mechanisms that must exist in order for a country to maintain a well-defined democratic system: freedom, equality, fairness, transparency, openness, trust and most importantly accountability for decision-making Lijphart (1999) further emphasizes these same characteristics that must exist in order to consider a national governmental and political structure as genuinely democratic. These include more emphasis on welfare spending and concern for human needs, decision-making consensus among political leadership and the general social population, and ethical morality driven by broader concerns over more than simply the accumulation and control over power mechanisms that include equality, transparency and accountability for actions. With the aforementioned characteristics of authoritarian systems that define democracy, it can be determined which European country is the most democratic through comparative analysis of two different European nations. The democratic environment Weingast (1997) idealizes a perfect democratic system as one in which elitism is reduced, a system practically defined as a: “privileged group of leaders with a particular ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes who believe carry considerable clout and wisdom and whose specialised skills maintain the ability to create more effective decision-making” (American Heritage Dictionary 2012, p.1). Why is elitism necessarily relevant to democracies, which by definition are designed to avoid monarchical or faction-based leadership? Lijphart offers that there is one type of democracy referred to as consociational democracies with Grand Coalition leadership that is characterised by groups of elite political members who agree to consensus-based government as they understand the complexities and problems that come from non-cooperative government. Even though these elite members are power-sharing and restrained by governance principles to seek self-gain as an objective, these leaders still maintain segregated principles and values produced by distinctly different economic privileges and socio-economic variables from the general social constituency base. Thus, Lijphart believes that elitism can still exist within a democratic system so long as the outcomes of decision-making and policy formation maintain the foundational outcomes of trust, equality, and concern for the welfare of the less privileged. In this sense, democracies are not necessarily dictated by the type of leadership that governs structure and control, so long as the benefits to constituents meet the parameters of effective accountability, ethics and integrity to better the whole of the state’s social population. Almond and Verba (1963) iterated with justifiable statistical data formed from quantitative research that a democracy can only exist and be successful in promoting democratic ideals if beliefs and values are congruent with the broader society as part of what is referred to as civic culture. “If there is no consensus within society, there can be little potentiality for the peaceful resolution of political differences that is associated with the democratic process” (Weingast 1997, p.253). Weingast, Almond and Verba are attempting to illustrate that considerable control in a genuine democracy lies in the hand of the people and thus society must maintain favourable opinion regarding the systems that will drive policy formation in order for equality and accountability to be genuine outcomes of political governance. A true democracy is only accomplished by creating a consensus-based system in which such agreement and accord exists not only within the political leadership regime, but between general society and the political leadership. When power lies in the hands of the people and governance laws restrain non-consensual decision-making, a democracy should be largely controlled by approval of citizens and their right to elect or appoint leadership through open voting processes. “Unequal participation in the governance process spells unequal influence, which is a problem for a representative-based democracy in which leadership action is directly influenced by citizen participation” (Lijphart 1997, p.5). It was previously established that in order for a genuine democracy to exist, there must be equality as an outcome between society and the governing legislatures, parliaments or factional regimes. Thus, a true democracy considers a partnership agreement between societal participants that will ultimately lead to consensual policy-making that promotes impartiality and uniformity. Now that it has been established the parameters and outcomes that must be present in order to characterise a legitimate democratic nation, it can be determined which European nation can be considered the most democratic. This will be accomplished by comparing The Netherlands with Ireland through analysis of the two distinct political structures that guide a supposed democracy. Two European democracies – a comparison The Netherlands is technically classified under Lijphart’s model of democracy as a consociational state, a political governance system consisting of a monarchy, parliamentary democracy, and a decentralised unitary state. The monarchical rulership does not have considerable clout as decision-maker such as that found in the United Kingdom, a country where the Queen can effectively declare war and make monumental decisions regarding national security. The monarchy in the Netherlands maintains an advisory and counsel role that works in conjunction with cabinet members and maintains influence over newly-constructed legislation as it is being considered in this democratic process. The Netherlands maintains a House of Representatives similar to American federalist/democratic systems in which members represent multiple parties with differing values that represent the interests, individually, of diverse national constituency (McGarry and O’Leary 1993). The legislative systems in place that include Advisory Boards within the House of Representatives and limiting control over monarchical influence mandate consensus in decision-making that is based on the demands and needs of individuals. Outcomes in this nation of policy formation and legislative advisory include legislation designed to create greater social good, enhanced social welfare, and transparency and accountability by the voting rights of citizens who elect representatives to the House. By all definitions offered by Lijphart (1997) and the aforementioned respected theorists and researchers, The Netherlands represents a genuine democracy where power is shared in the ranks of political influence and with the people. New policies and discussions between the three main ruling parties are publicised and thus able to be critiqued by citizens to determine whether they have the best interests of society in mind. Geismann (1994), however, disagrees that the Netherlands represents a genuine democracy and considers this nation to be democratically limited and weak by practical and respected definitions of what entails democracy. Geismann examined the relationships and activities occurring within the main advisory parties designed to represent the interests of the voting people and assessed that this nation does not have adequate representation for society. Why is this? Under this author’s assessment, the constructs of special interests existing within the many different parties elected or appointed to House positions are more attuned to satisfying corporate agenda, religious agenda and even green environmentalism that negates the needs and demands of the people (Geismann). The complexity of the governance design and the processes required to remove ineffective leadership work as restraints to promoting equality and even accountability. Since equality and accountability are affected by elements of monarchical leadership and special interest agenda promotion, and there is weak influence in power equality by citizens, it would not be logical or legitimate to consider The Netherlands the most democratic European nation. Political actors must be adherent to the demands of the general society and avoid special interest considerations as taking precedence over the voting populations. Schedler (2002) highlights the phenomenon that occurs when leaders openly herald the democratic voting process, but through evolution after election, seek to improve their own position of authority. The evolution of special interest parties within the House of Representatives in The Netherlands has negated the foundational structure needed to classify the state as a genuine democracy. Ireland also prides itself as being a democracy, a parliamentary republic with ample representation with executive, legislative and judicial branches that represent balance of power and control. The country is governed by a President, Supreme Court, and a cabinet that dictates legislative policy. Coakley and Gallagher (2004) consider this to be a mutual veto democracy in which majority maintains the authority to move forward with policy formation and legislative construction. In this democracy, Irish citizens witness the internal practices of consensual or veto authority within certain branches of the government and thus can exert their influence through vote or protest when concerns over the special interest agenda or lack of concern over citizen demand is witnessed. In many respects, this particular country is modelled after the federalism democracy found within the United States in nearly every category of governance. The government is restricted by the fundamental articles and revisions in the national Constitution that are ratified by elected members of the legislative branch and thus are directly influenced by the people and are highly transparent. Programs and laws that directly deal with changing principles of society are influenced by the people and thus the Constitution acts as a tool for transparency and accountability for decision-making. If laws are dissimilar to the majority opinion of the citizenry, such laws are abolished through representative groups and thus serve the interests of the people. Lijphart identified the specific foundations of democracy that must be present to distinctly classify a nation as being democratic. Ireland does not maintain complications that stem from elitism groups or special interest Parties that complicate the creation of legislation designed to meet the welfare of constituents. Openness exists through the Constitution thus providing opportunity for citizen interjection that will ultimately lead to policy changes. Equality and fairness are governed by the principles highlighted in the Constitution, thus no one party can exert its influence to negate these principles as was identified in The Netherlands where advisory agencies and special interest-based parties continued to complicate the process of establishing equality, accountability, and high emphasis on social welfare as a whole. Ireland should then be considered the most democratic nation in Europe since the systems and legislation that binds the hands of political actors prevents abuse of power or construction of special interest agendas that conflict with constituent values. By having a system of checks and balances in place, power does not lean to any particular entity in governance and citizens have the absolute power to denounce representation or protest legislative changes without concern over elite opposition. Conclusion The political structure of the proclaimed democracy in the Netherlands and that identified in Ireland illustrated that The Netherlands lacked some of the fundamental systems that must be in place to be a legitimate democracy. Ireland maintains all elements of the described foundation of democracy with shared power among political actors and the citizenry, outcomes favouring welfare consideration and accountability, and transparency required to ensure that consensual decision-making occurs regularly. The Netherlands maintained evolutionary development of special interest Parties that conflicted important democratic elements such as trust, openness, and accountability that are required of a genuine democratic system. Ireland is considered the most democratic European nation based on accepted principles of what dictates democracy which would satisfy the criteria of Lijphart and other respected researchers and theorists in political studies. References Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. (1963). The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. In Weingast, B. (1997). “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law”. The American Political Science Review, 91(2), pp. 245-263. American Heritage Dictionary. (2012), Elitism. (accessed July 31, 2012 at http://www.answers.com/topic/elitism#copyright) Coakley, J. and Gallagher, M. (2004), Politics in the Republic of Ireland, London: Routledge. Geismann, G. (1964).[translated] Politische Struktur and Regierungssystem inden Niederlanden.Frankfurt am Main: Atheneum. Lijphart, A. (1997), Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma, The American Political Science Review, 91(1), pp.1-14. Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press McGarry, J.and O'Leary, B. (1993). Introduction: The macro-political regulation of ethnic conflict, In McGarry, John and O'Leary, Brendan. The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflicts. London: Routledge, pp. 1–40. Richard Barrett (2011), States in the evolution of democracy. (accessed July 31, 2012 at http://www.valuescentre.com/uploads/2012-06 19/Stages%20in%20the%20evolution%20of%20democracy.pdf) Schedler, Andreas. (2002). The Nested Game of Democratization by Elections. International Political Science Review. 23(1), pp. 103-122. Weingast, Barry R. (1997). The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law. The American Political Science Review. 91(2), pp. 245-263. Read More